why is kierkegaard considered a genius on this forum?
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:55 pm
Can someone explain?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Kierkegaard was an ethical man. If a man gets hisself a VD, he needs to not hook up with a woman. He don't need to tell her why, he just needs to leave her alone. If he hadn't been with whores, he would've had hisself a fine woman.When he was 28 years old, because of some personal affliction (possibly venereal disease) Kierkegaard forced himself to spurn the affections of the most popular woman in Copenhagen—18-year-old Regine Olsen, whom he dearly loved—without explaining to her why.
And
Kierkegaard’s reaction to the decay and moral bankruptcy of official “cultivated†society was to attack the very foundation of the Enlightenment that had produced it—reason. Reason was the cornerstone of it all—of science, of knowledge, of medicine, of the Church, and of philosophy.
Real knowledge or understanding, Kierkegaard argued, was acquired individually, emotionally and immediately through lucid experiences. Kierkegaard strongly believed, first of all, that the whole idea of Christendom was therefore mistaken. God has no relationship to human society in the abstract, Kierkegaard thought. God has relationships only with individuals, and the individual experience of God—one of terror and awe—is of an intimately personal and mystical nature.
Kierkegaard regarded all of the Enlightenment conceptions of scientific objectivity as total nonsense. “Absolutely no benefit can be derived from involving oneself with the natural sciences,†Kierkegaard wrote. “One stands there defenseless, with no control over anything. The researcher immediately begins to distract one with his details: Now one is to go to Australia, now to the moon; now into an underground cave; now, by Satan, up the arse—to look for an intestinal worm; now the telescope must be used; now the microscope: Who in the devil can endure it?†(p. 468)
Quinn, Solway and others found a kindred spirit in Kierkegaard, so they took what they liked from him, and ignored the rest.Kierkegaard’s life was indeed tragic, and it is easy to see how his story strikes a chord with many today who are likewise disgusted by the circumstances of modern life
I do hope Quinn or Solway show up on this thread and give their take. Hades questions are similar to my own. I've been wondering on a similar vein since I came on this forum.Hades wrote:Wasn't he a christian who subscribed to the Abrahamic god belief?
Why don't you explore some of this compilation strewn together by Quinn and Solway.hades wrote: And Cory Duchesne, what does his opinion of women have to do with being a genius, and what exactly was it?
"Mommy! Save me!" part 2Cory Duchesne wrote: I do hope Quinn or Solway show up on this thread and give their take.
This is like asking, "Why is the sun considered a bright, shining object?"why is kierkegaard considered a genius on this forum?
Not at all. He was only a Christian in the sense that he was a follower of the path that Jesus spoke about, but that has little to do with religion of Christianity. He was to Christianity what Einstein was to kindergarten or what Mozart was to tinkering tunelessly on the piano.Wasn't he a christian who subscribed to the Abrahamic god belief?
As the link that Cory gave reveals, Kierkegaard's views on women are very similar to my own views, and others on this forum. The ability to reject woman and see beyond her requires great intellectual courage, which is a necessary requirement for genius.And Cory Duchesne, what does his opinion of women have to do with being a genius, and what exactly was it?
The man she married was not a philosopher but a civil servant. The is a philosopher with the name Schlegel, but this is not the same person.Regine later married the successful philosopher Fritz Schlegel
I read Garff's biography recently and I don't remember this being suggested. He theorized that Kierkegaard's father may have had a venereal disease based on Stages on Life's Way, but not Kierkegaard himself, if memory serves.because of some personal affliction (possibly venereal disease)
"Possibly venereal disease". Ah, that's a new one. I haven't head that one before. We can add it to the list:When he was 28 years old, because of some personal affliction (possibly venereal disease) Kierkegaard forced himself to spurn the affections of the most popular woman in Copenhagen—18-year-old Regine Olsen, whom he dearly loved—without explaining to her why.
Kierkegaard’s reaction to the decay and moral bankruptcy of official “cultivated†society was to attack the very foundation of the Enlightenment that had produced it—reason. Reason was the cornerstone of it all—of science, of knowledge, of medicine, of the Church, and of philosophy.
Real knowledge or understanding, Kierkegaard argued, was acquired individually, emotionally and immediately through lucid experiences. Kierkegaard strongly believed, first of all, that the whole idea of Christendom was therefore mistaken. God has no relationship to human society in the abstract, Kierkegaard thought. God has relationships only with individuals, and the individual experience of God—one of terror and awe—is of an intimately personal and mystical nature.
Totally agree with that. I've often wondered how anyone with intelligence could stand being a scientist. Look at him: he is mysteriously flung into the world without his say-so, sustained from one moment to the next by the miracle of his own consciousness, surrounded by the ever-changing richness of existence, blessed with an intelligence that can penetrate into any matter at all, and so what does he do for the rest of his life ....? He studies the life-cycle of a dung-beetle!Kierkegaard regarded all of the Enlightenment conceptions of scientific objectivity as total nonsense. “Absolutely no benefit can be derived from involving oneself with the natural sciences,†Kierkegaard wrote. “One stands there defenseless, with no control over anything. The researcher immediately begins to distract one with his details: Now one is to go to Australia, now to the moon; now into an underground cave; now, by Satan, up the arse—to look for an intestinal worm; now the telescope must be used; now the microscope: Who in the devil can endure it?â€
Totally agree with that. I've often wondered how anyone with intelligence could stand being a scientist. Look at him: he is mysteriously flung into the world without his say-so, sustained from one moment to the next by the miracle of his own consciousness, surrounded by the ever-changing richness of existence, blessed with an intelligence that can penetrate into any matter at all, and so what does he do for the rest of his life ....? He studies the life-cycle of a dung-beetle!
Jamesh wrote:David loves him so much because David is totally in love with the concept of sageness. He thinks there is something glorious about being a sage. Kierkies stuff is written as an appeal to this emotion/desire.
All science is a variation of the theme of studying dung-beetles. Even the grandest theorizing by cosmologists is infinitely small and infinitely unimportant in the larger scheme of things.DQ: Totally agree with that. I've often wondered how anyone with intelligence could stand being a scientist. Look at him: he is mysteriously flung into the world without his say-so, sustained from one moment to the next by the miracle of his own consciousness, surrounded by the ever-changing richness of existence, blessed with an intelligence that can penetrate into any matter at all, and so what does he do for the rest of his life ....? He studies the life-cycle of a dung-beetle!
H: Scientists do a lot more than study dung-beetles.
Why not indeed? I'm sure it is a perfectly respectable pastime. I just can't imagine anyone with intelligence actually doing it.And even bugs are part of our ever-changing rich existance. So why not study them?
I think it is an escape from that wonder. Or the directing of it in such a way that it becomes distant and harmless. It is as though the wonder, and all that it implies, is far too powerful for them and they have to dilute it as much as possible, just to live and breathe.I understand scientists, they have the same sort of wonder as philosophers, but their wonder and fascination is just directed upon different parts of reality.
To my mind, his greatest expression of genius was his uncompromising nature and his willingness to squarely face the suffering which underlies becoming truthful and wise in this world. Most gurus concentrate on the perceived happy aspects of spirituality - the tranquility, inner peace, greater control, etc - but very few of them ever touch upon the terrifying and painful aspects. For good reason, they don't want to scare their followers away! It wouldn't be good for business.And what truth did Kierk discover that makes him a genius? I'm sure it takes more than just attacking a system of western thought and rejecting an attractive 18 year old girl...
I think Kierkegaard was a very rational person, and I doubt that he would reject anything that could be reasoned to be true.The above link leads to a pretty funny article written by DD, of which, in my opinion, expresses a passion for that
which Kierkegaard despised.
If there is anything in Kierkegaard that seems passé, I wouldn't hesitate to clarify that he was not a man of his time. He didn't subscribe to any belief, so much as invent new ones. In every sense of the term, he was a freethinking genius.Wasn't he a christian who subscribed to the Abrahamic god belief?
David Quinn wrote: All science is a variation of the theme of studying dung-beetles. Even the grandest theorizing by cosmologists is infinitely small and infinitely unimportant in the larger scheme of things.
Again, science goes way beyond studying dung-beetles and has marvelous results and effects.Why not indeed? I'm sure it is a perfectly respectable pastime. I just can't imagine anyone with intelligence actually doing it.
It's like settling down for a third-rate existence. An abandoning of the stars. A giving up of one's soul.
What do you think are the fundamental issues?
I think it is an escape from that wonder. Or the directing of it in such a way that it becomes distant and harmless. It is as though the wonder, and all that it implies, is far too powerful for them and they have to dilute it as much as possible, just to live and breathe.
Science is process of immersing oneself in the trees and losing sight of the forest. It is a useful vehicle for those who want their minds distracted from fundamental issues, and many people are quick to take advantage of it.
To my mind, his greatest expression of genius was his uncompromising nature and his willingness to squarely face the suffering which underlies becoming truthful and wise in this world. Most gurus concentrate on the perceived happy aspects of spirituality - the tranquility, inner peace, greater control, etc - but very few of them ever touch upon the terrifying and painful aspects. For good reason, they don't want to scare their followers away! It wouldn't be good for business.
Have a look here for some of Kierkegaard's "sculptures".hades wrote:I'm trying to find out what he said or did that warrants such a rank. For example, if I asked what makes Michelangelo Buonarroti a fantastic sculptor? One could answer: well he sculpted X Y and Z...and they were fantastic by our standards.
Do you understand what I mean?
Wasn't it Lao Tzu who said, "Great thought seems like sexual dysfunction," or something?David Quinn wrote:Everything has to be sex-related nowadays, otherwise it doesn't register in the modern mind. Where it will end, I wonder?
The meaning is very similar.The wise student hears the Tao and practices it
diligently.
The average student hears of the Tao and gives it
thought now and again.
The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.
If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.
Hence it is said: The bright path seems dim;
Going forward seems like retreat;
The easy way seems hard;
The highest Virtue seems empty;
Great Purity seems sullied;
A wealth of Virtue seems inadequate;
The strength of Virtue seems frail:
Real Virtue seems unreal;
The perfect square has no corners;
Great talents ripen late;
The highest notes are hard to hear;
The greatest form has no shape;
The Tao is hidden and without name.
The Tao alone nourishes and brings everything to
fullfilment.